Its posturing on the Wilshire bus-only lane is as comical as it is sad.

The BRU is, at heart, an anti-rail group. The BRU was an early opponent of bus rapid transit. The Bus Riders Union opposing buses? Well, yes, because Metro was introducing bourgeois service-quality elements to buses. It took a while before the BRU “got” Rapid bus, but it did raise a good point that Metro should not have built a zero-growth Rapid network by reducing local service and coverting local runs to Rapids.

Really, the BRU will tolerate bourgeois service to the extent that it stops rail. So the BRU wants bus-only lanes on Wilshire because it figures L.A. will never have to build the subway.

With that out of the way, I am critical of “BRT” because it has become a Mad Libs transportation mode. The only consistency among all the BRT programs is that they use buses. Otherwise, transit agencies around the country use the term to mean whatever they want it to.

L.A. has THREE kinds of BRT.
1. Actual bus lanes on freeways, where buses run strict commuter service or a combination local-express line. See: El Monte Busway and Harbor Transitway.
2. The Rapid bus network, a federally-funded marketing gimmick to take existing limited-stop buses and trick people into believing it’s a completely new and fast service. See: 700-series lines and 300-series lines.
3. A rail equivalent but using buses. See: Orange Line.

In the rest of the country, there’s a combination of L.A.’s 2 and 3 in surface streets (Las Vegas and Eugene), a peak-hour point-to-point express bus service (Phoenix), but mostly they are tarted-up limited-stop buses (Albuquerque, Oakland and San Jose).

Which kind of BRT should L.A. have?

————

Oh, I agree with you that BRT is a viable solution in many places. My point is that it is not an adequate substitute where a rail corridor is warranted. There are lots of places where BRT would be viable, where rail is not, and there are some places where both BRT and rail is warranted.

However, BRT on Wilshire is not an adequate substitute for rail where it is warranted. A needed compliment, yes. A valid subsitute, no.

Hell yes, I agree with you about moving people first and not focusing exclusively on cars.

However, BRT is a viable transportation solution. It is not just Bus Riders Union wackos who like BRT.

One clear thing that killed BRT along Wilshire was the requirement to remove parking as opposed to removing a private car travel lane. That really would have hurt local businesses.

The conversation should be about taking away car lanes, and putting BRT in their place. I know that is controversial – but it really is the right way to go, and it prevents the type of local push-back that you get when you mess with the livelihood of merchants.

I’d START with Wilshire, Santa Monica, Vermont, Western, Hollywood, Ventura, Van Nuys, Pico and Fairfax, and then build from there.

However, the automobile-entitled will fight tooth and nail to stop even the Wilshire bus-only lanes from happening.

The previous bus-only lanes on Wilshire in Brentwood lasted about 30 seconds before small businesses and the automobile-entitled started lobbying to have them removed.

We certainly NEED transit-only lanes (bus and streetcar), but they are unlikely in the current climate and not a true substitute for rail on Wilshire.

However, we also need to think in terms of moving people first, not vehicles first.